Where is the new age of Science Fiction Literature?

[Serendipity]

OK... now for part 2 on a totally different subject...

It's (comparatively) easy to extrapolate current technologies that are in development now to see where they can get to.

One problem is and always has been one of timing. When will they reach a certain level of capability and/or functionality?

A second problem it when will different technologies combine to form a system that will produce a beneficial capability that neither of the contributing technologies can do alone? Here the problem is identifying which technologies combine to give what capabilities. This as far as I can make out is a real black art and very few people hit the mark.

When the two problems combine, you get chaos and confusion... which comes first when etc etc. This is why getting nearer term future tech right in science fiction is so difficult.

But that shouldn't stop science fiction writers and publishers. The more ideas about where we can go tech-wise, the better informed choices the scientists and investors in new tech can make.

It is this kind of science fiction I call progressive science fiction, because in its way it is helping technology and society to progress.

Anyway rant 2 over...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's (comparatively) easy to extrapolate current technologies that are in development now to see where they can get to.

Though sometimes OTHER developments make them irrelevant?
Do we need High Speed trains if the train has space, decent food & drink, power sockets and WiFi with decent speed internet?
Is the "hyperloop" transport concept (or indeed supersonic air travel) a dead end?

In SF today we are getting a load of "Star Trek" inspired fantasy junk with AI and nanotech that is no different to magic. It's not SF.

 

[Cli-Fi]

Furthermore, the buzz is that the Queen's Speech (due this week) will introduce legal measures to enable driverless cars to be deemed roadworthy in the next Transport Bill.

If I remember correctly one of Sylvester Stalone's science fiction film forays (the one with Sandra Bullock) had a driverless car in it.

Pretty Cool about the Queen acknowledging driverless cars. I wonder how she really feels about it... The sixth day a year 2000 schwarzenegger movie, also has semi-autonomous vehicles in it, and they require the driver to park it. Whereas, in reality. The self-parking feature has seemed to come first. AKA Lexus, Audi, Tesla Etc...

Actually the sixth day which the plot takes place, "in the near future," is probably one of my favorite movies about cloning and such... I also think the AMC show HUMANS highlights a pretty great version of the Robotic rights issue. Which I no doubt believe will be an issue 30-40 years from now.

 

[Cli-Fi]

OK... now for part 2 on a totally different subject...

It's (comparatively) easy to extrapolate current technologies that are in development now to see where they can get to.

One problem is and always has been one of timing. When will they reach a certain level of capability and/or functionality?

A second problem it when will different technologies combine to form a system that will produce a beneficial capability that neither of the contributing technologies can do alone? Here the problem is identifying which technologies combine to give what capabilities. This as far as I can make out is a real black art and very few people hit the mark.

When the two problems combine, you get chaos and confusion... which comes first when etc etc. This is why getting nearer term future tech right in science fiction is so difficult.

But that shouldn't stop science fiction writers and publishers. The more ideas about where we can go tech-wise, the better informed choices the scientists and investors in new tech can make.

It is this kind of science fiction I call progressive science fiction, because in its way it is helping technology and society to progress.

Anyway rant 2 over...

My WIP is actually based on a futuristic timeline I had conceived from a project that I worked on in 2009 which analyzed current technology trends and where they are headed. I have been pretty on the mark with a few hit or misses.

Things I got correct were Facebook and Social Media getting onto the VR bandwagon thanks to it's practically unlimited and untapped ad market landscape. Also I had a feeling Facebook was going to introduce live-streaming five years before anyone else...

However, while I am in tuned with those emerging markets. The hardware market has failed me miserably. I did not anticipate the death of Steve Jobs and how much of a visionary impact he had at Apple. Apple has since turned into a safe haven for incremental design updates to the same basic thing that was on the market five years ago.

But I am happy to say that I've been more right than wrong in my predictions especially in regards to driverless cars...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Apple has since turned into a safe haven for incremental design updates to the same basic thing that was on the market five years ago.

It ALWAYS was. the iPhone succeeded due to the carrier contract. The iPhone was always overpriced. Fingerworks GUI bought in for the first. They have run out of increments to add to iphone and market is saturated.
The iPod was late to market and made it due to iTune deals with Record labels.
Steve was a salesman, a brilliant marketeer. Not a designer or visionary.

 

[Cory Swanson]

So much of this discussion has to do with the near future, and I find tech interesting and all, but there are so many other sciences to explore. What about social sciences, evolution, physics? These will generally work on a much larger time scale, but I think there is a gold mine of ideas here. Why are we obsessed with robots and driverless cars and not with story? Technology is a game changer for sure, but there are real game changers in the other sciences as well. What could lead to geographic isolation and cause humans to speciate? How could we use our knowledge of biology and evolution to make other planets habitable?

Also, we play cowboys and indians in our stories because there are some fundamental things about conflict, culture, and human nature that would remain constant regardless of robots and space ships. When two cultures meet, one tends to dominate and the other is oppressed. Guns, germs, and steel stuff for sure. Also, what causes cultures to succeed or collapse? What drives a species to create technology?

Too many good questions are being neglected because we have too narrow a view of science.

 

[Dan Jones]

Why are we obsessed with robots and driverless cars and not with story?

I think you'll find we're rather obsessed with story round these parts.

As for me, I mentioned the autonomous vehicles stuff because it's one the fields I deal with at work, so have some familiarity with it, and it's currently in the news, being in the Queen's Speech yesterday.

Welcome to Chrons!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Too many good questions are being neglected because we have too narrow a view of science.

Welcome to the chrons forums, Cory.

 

[Cory Swanson]

I think you'll find we're rather obsessed with story round these parts.

Someone brought up the point that we think that our cool idea about technology is the story. It is a good point. All writers are creating a diorama of sorts for their characters and stories to play out in. Ultimately, though, the story is nothing if it does not teach us about ourselves and the nature of living and humanity.

I am also interested in the question of how humanity changes due to changes in either culture or technology, etc. What stays the same regardless? Do technology or advanced culture make us a different species altogether? Otherwise, the story is, "Boy, self driving cars are sure neat."

Not to beat that one dead. Is our love of driving essential to us and unchanged regardless of technology? Do we fundamentally change when we are passengers? The moral implications of trusting AI in situations of danger are very interesting as well. Cool story drivers regardless of time and availability of the technology.

Also, if timeliness is the key, nothing is stopping you from self publishing these days. Nuts to contracts and anything at all taking two to five years to reach consumers. Publishers need to figure this out.

 

[Cory Swanson]

I also can't figure out how this works, obviously. I wrote all but the first part of that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's okay, you just typed inside the quote box. I'll edit that for you.

 

[Toby Frost]

Ultimately, though, the story is nothing if it does not teach us about ourselves and the nature of living and humanity.

I think Cory Swanson is right. The real point of SF is surely not to discuss new technology or to predict the future in a literal way but to explore people's reactions to that. If everyone says that the self-driving cars are neat, it'll probably be a boring story. But if some people think they'll be forced out of their jobs, others that the cars are the work of the devil, and then the cars start to do unexpected things, that could be a good story. It's true that if the technology is totally unbelievable, it may well harm the book. But I don't think that's the best way of judging SF. Not all good SF is hard SF, after all.

 

[Dan Jones]

I agree with this. The point of near-future SF is to show a) where we're headed if we continue on our current trajectory and b) the implications of that at a human level. Having said that, one has to place limitations one oneself, otherwise everything has to have a backstory and a problem and before you know it you've gone all Song of Ice and Fire where everybody has a long, protracted backstory.

One has to create a believable world, of course; in bear-future that means several "new" or at least evolved technologies in everyday use; let's continue using the cars example. I keep going back to my WIP because it's near future and seems to fit a lot of what we're talking about.

Autonomous cars feature in the story. They're also fairly irrelevant with respect to plot; they take characters from A to B. They occasionally talk to the driver. And that's pretty much it. The story isn't about the cars, but they are a part of the world.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

They're also fairly irrelevant with respect to plot; they take characters from A to B. They occasionally talk to the driver. And that's pretty much it.

So no different to an anonymous taxi driver unimportant to plot. The main idea of autonomous cars, in reality, is to reduce ownership of cars and encourage "shared cars". Families would still want their own car, autonomous or not. Yet again it's an agenda being pushed by young single white males with too much money and a naive view of society, except in the aspect of wanting to make money by knowing everyone's personal details. That's why conventional vehicle makers are concentrating on autonomous commercial stuff, like big trucks and "road trains" and Google and others on small urban/suburban "cars" designed as taxi replacement. It's the reason Apple invested in Didi and Google in Uber as the taxi drivers are not important to them, but the App based "hailing" and slurping of all the user data.

 

[Cory Swanson]

Yes, slurping. Good word. I feel that is the story. Not the tech but how the people use it and it effects them. The greed, the hubris of these companies. It is quietly taking over our lives and just like the famous frog in the boiling pot, we are changed by it without really being aware of it.

Back to another idea. That 100 years from now won't be much different from now despite a few technological changes. It is easy to see it this way if you resist the dystopian temptation (which I am rarely capable of) but think back to 100 years ago. Cars were barely a thing and legal prostitution still existed in New Orleans. Jazz didn't really have a name yet. (OK, I'm reading a book on turn of the century New Orleans.) Also think about 20 years ago and how much has changed since then. Dick Tracy watches are here. I remember thinking it would be so cool to talk to people through my watch.

I think 100 years from now will be drastically different, but we will still be people. Same strengths and weaknesses. That is the story, the rest is just cool to think about.

 

[Cory Swanson]

One more thought. History is our truest vision of the future. Maybe that is the new age of Sci-Fi. Just look at steam punk. What a rich mine of material history really is.

 

[abrucestewart]

Sorry, I've only skimmed over the whole thread even though it's right up my street, but I will go back and read it in depth before I really engage. Honest.

However, I didn't spot anyone talking about Peter F Hamilton? If I picked up enough, I think he's pretty much the authour you're looking for. He regualrly takes current ideas in tech (and some really old ones) and projects it into the future; e.g. his Commonwealth(?) series relies on trains passing through planet-based wormholes to connect the different planets; the Great North Road deals with future policing and detective work relying on low-level surveillance through ubiquitous bugs to solve a murder involving cloning (and, I believe, a unique Singualrity).

On the other hand, from the storytelling point of view, while he writes barn-storming page turners, it's just a pity he doesn't always know how to end them (as he has admitted himself!)

ABS

 

[Vertigo]

I feel his Commonwealth books are so far in the future as to be more magic than science, however I do agree that the Great North Road presents an interesting look at the future possibilities for policing.

 

[abrucestewart]

Afraid I may seem to wander a bit, as there's a few comments scattered about the thread that seem to me to come together.

I am by no means an Apple Fanboi - I'm writing this on a Surface Pro - and I'm not looking for an Apple fight, but I'd suggest not underestimating the abilities to see a particular solution no-one else sees, to borrow ideas, incorporate them into a desirable package and then make others want that package all at the right time.

These skills can change the world, as Jobs did with the mobile phone, tablet and music worlds, and began to do to publishing. As Elon Musk did with online payments, rocket launches and electric cars. As Ford did with the Model T, Florence Nightingale with nursing, Mohammed with Islam, Boeing with the 707, Thatcher with free market economics, von Braun with the V2, McCarthy with the fear of communism, Pol Pot with communism, and many many others. I am by no means equating or promoting any of these things, but, to me, this is one of the key lessons of history, of how humanity works. Key individuals can make a huge difference for good or ill if they market the right idea in the right way at the right time.

Telling the stories of those people bringing those ideas to fruition can be thrilling (biography is a big field), but just as engaging stories can be told by looking at the people who are impacted by the ideas, and, to my mind, especially the interaction of those ideas in unexpected ways. Who would have predicted that texting would enable the fall of President Marcos, and yet smartphones with Twitter, Facebook, et al would fail to bring about the crowd's wishes in the Arab Spring?

I guess the other lesson history suggests is that things can take a long time to change and things can change very quickly - so who knows what the world will look like in 100 years? In the developed world in about 30 years we've adopted IT to such an extent that 'net access is now seen as a basic utility, while the Catholic Church has for centuries and still does influence about 15% of the world's population. I believe the trick in SF / SF / F is to take a bunch of ideas from across human experience and extrapolate them somehow, while seeing how they consistently affect each other and the existing context - difficult, but also fun!

As a writer (almost, almost, almost an author!), I would completely agree that it's the story that counts; it's the thing(s) that are different to now and what they mean to the characters that makes my stories SF, and it's the way the characters, historical and futuristic elements interact that make them good reading (I hope!).

Hope that's a useful contribution.

ABS

 

[abrucestewart]

I feel his Commonwealth books are so far in the future as to be more magic than science

I know what you mean, they could be seen more as space opera (certainly some of his other series definately are). But regardless of the dates he gives, I didn't get the impression they were that far advanced in technology, more sensible extrapolations of current trends. Which is why I thought they might be of interest here (albeit space based). But let's not get bogged down in a debate about PFH here!

On a side note, I was surprised not to see a thread on his work on the Chrons? Have I missed it somewhere? Perhaps he's not as popular as he was about ten years ago, but for a while he must have been one of the best sellers in the UK at least.

ABS